Lady Eli

[Mr Saratoga]

I'm sure CCB will find the right spot for her, he has said that she's the best turf filly he ever trained.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't even know what to say any longer. I'm at a loss as to how tracks could do this for one, and even worse report bullcrap data. I don't even know who is at fault. Is it NYRA? Is it Equibase? The same exact thing just happened on Belmont Stakes day.

Yes, for big races most of us see it and adjust accordingly, but how can anyone possibly believe what is put in the PPs for your average race when the big races aren't right?

It's hard enough to make accurate figures without all these unnecessary complications. I don't have the time to check all the run ups, rail settings, wind directions, fat fingers (plus everything else that goes into it) and still have time to handicap. They just don't get it.

I'm back to classing horses with my own ratings. I just make sure the horse is not a slug on speed figures relative to the competition and leave it at that.

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by cj

They rarely run the distance, can't see it would make much difference.

I just counted, from the gate to the very beginning of the purple flowers that say "New York":

Belmont Derby 19 lengths of rail
Belmont Oaks 27 lengths of rail (tough angle but this is close)

What are the lengths of rail, 10 feet? If close that is a pretty big difference.

Correct, it was 32 ft vs 42 ft on the charts

[cj]

Originally Posted by Some_One

Correct, it was 32 ft vs 42 ft on the charts

It was 42 for both, so it was changed, but I think it will get changed again per Equibase. It isn't close to a 10 foot difference and they are now aware of the issue.

[Tom]

OH, I see...one of those "about" distances.
Would be nice if the alleged racing writers at the Post would cover stuff like this. Would be nicer if the head guy at NYRA got involved with serving his customers.

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by cj

It was 42 for both, so it was changed, but I think it will get changed again per Equibase. It isn't close to a 10 foot difference and they are now aware of the issue.

Strange, I was pretty sure it was 32 ft and 42 ft when I checked this morning, just checked and it's now 42 ft for the boys and 84 ft for the girls

[cj]

Originally Posted by Some_One

Strange, I was pretty sure it was 32 ft and 42 ft when I checked this morning, just checked and it's now 42 ft for the boys and 84 ft for the girls

It probably was this morning. I checked it Saturday and both were listed at 42.

I'm not sure 84 is correct either, but at this point I don't really care any longer. I just do the best I can figure wise and move on. Those rails sections look longer than than 5 feet to me which is what they would be if the difference were 40.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

It probably was this morning. I checked it Saturday and both were listed at 42.

I'm not sure 84 is correct either, but at this point I don't really care any longer. I just do the best I can figure wise and move on. Those rails sections look longer than than 5 feet to me which is what they would be if the difference were 40.

I'm fairly sure the sections are at least 8' long. But, many commercial (non-racing) fencing sections are 10' long.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

I'm fairly sure the sections are at least 8' long. But, many commercial (non-racing) fencing sections are 10' long.

I'm guessing 10' because it looks like a running horse fits in between them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

Twice, on the second biggest day of the meet?
Leave the freaking gate there and run the two races back to back.

What other reason could there be? And it isn't b/c they're dumb.

[Saratoga_Mike]

"Gulfstream may change the run-ups from race to race, so that the starting gate causes less wear and tear on the turf course, making race-to-race comparisons meaningless, too." Andy Beyer, DRF, March 2014

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

What other reason could there be? And it isn't b/c they're dumb.

It is a stupid reason and maybe not dumb, but just don't care. Which is worse. Thje point is, capable people dedicated to their customer find ways to get thing down the right way. Has a race track ever done that?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Tom

It is a stupid reason and maybe not dumb, but just don't care. Which is worse. Thje point is, capable people dedicated to their customer find ways to get thing down the right way. Has a race track ever done that?

Is it possible that their "customer" is not who they're dedicated to? Or, is their "customer", maybe, someone other than the bettors?

Really, when was the last time a track thought that the bettors deserved anything other than a fleecing, snide remarks, and swift kicks in the ass (with the parting comment "If you don't like it then get the hell out")?

[Tom]

I have no doubt that they have no clue who the customer is.
I seriously doubt they know they are running races that people bet on.

College swimming has more technology and awareness than any track in the country. Even when they spend all that money on Takus, they bastardize the output to fit the model they set up in 1885.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Tom

I have no doubt that they have no clue who the customer is.
I seriously doubt they know they are running races that people bet on.

College swimming has more technology and awareness than any track in the country. Even when they spend all that money on Takus, they bastardize the output to fit the model they set up in 1885.

That about covers it!